February 12, 2003

Hey man nice shot

Ooh, look at my new desktop wallpaper:

(Click for larger)

Get that and more here. (I have a theory about this scene, which I will expound upon later when I feel like posting more. As far as I am concerned, this shot made the movie for me. When I get The Two Towers on dvd, I will be doing stop-back-replay on this scene quite a bit. Everyone else is like, battle battle battle, or Legolas jumping on the horse, and I'm like, yeah yeah, those are good scenes, but for me it's Nazgul on the bridge. Rock.)

Posted by Andrea Harris at February 12, 2003 09:21 PM

Comments

I can see I don't remember a damn thing about The Lord of the Rings. I have absolutely no idea what that thing is. I remember a big lizard that slept on a pile of loose change, but I don't think that's him.

I didn't even think you'd read the book. ;) (PS: the lizard on the pile of loose change is actually from The Hobbit, which is the "prequel" -- ugh, I hate that word -- to this whole mishegas. And this scene here is one that Peter Jackson "invented" for the movie; it's nowhere in the book. The flying lizard thingies are, though -- elsewhere. Now I hope you took note, because there will be a quiz later!)

How many times must this be repeated to the purists books and film = DIFFERENT MEDIA. Forget about the plot for just one second and look at the image, because film is a primarily visual means of storytelling. I admit the Osgiliath scene was pretty weak, but this was Jackson's vision as well as Tolkien's and the image itself is really cool.

btw, speaking of "prequel", i can't be the only one that desperately wishes Jackson had thought to himself "hey, we've got the damn hobbit village... we've got the troll statues... we've got the weapons and the dwarf make-up... we've got a decent Bilbo..."

Oh -- I'm not particularly impressed by the way the shot was put together either -- I don't think that way. I mean, it's interesting and all, the way some scenes were all cgi with the actors running around in front of blue screens and looking at golf balls, etc., but when it comes to actually watching the movie I tend to forget all that. I don't analyze scenes, take them apart, etc. Of course, when I watch the interviews later on how they did things, I do get the urge to get some programs and make little movies and things. Like that flame thing they used for the Balrog... Good thing I'm out of money! Heh.

hm. you don't think they could make Holm look a bit younger (i mean the Ring forstalled his aging radically, so they have a good argument that he'd look pretty much the same from The Hobbit to LoTR) for filming The Hobbit?

he was such a good Bilbo. it's a small part in the trilogy, but IMHO he really nailed it. and obviously Sir Ian McKellen just IS Gandalf now. nearly anyone could hop into the dwarves, as long as they got a decent Thorin.

Well, they taped his face back (a kind of "instant face lift") for those expository scenes in Gollum's cave. I just wonder if he could take that for an entire movie shoot. Actors will go through a lot for a film. And I agree: Ian Holm is Bilbo.

Ian Holm did a really excellent job of showing how the ring got hold of its "owner" and how hard it was for Bilbo to let go. I thought it was superb acting. The scene of dropping the ring at the door and going out ought to have got an Oscar right there.

Some Tolkien purists on Usenet argue that the Bakshi film is more faithful to the books, since essentially all of the dialogue and events in it are taken directly from the books, whereas the Jackson films have much new dialogue and a few entirely new scenes like the one in question.

But the first two LOTR movies taken together-- about six hours of film, more on extended DVD-- present just a little bit more of the story than the Bakshi movie did in a little over two hours. I'd argue that attempting to compress the story that much would cause trouble no matter how competent you were-- even the Jackson movies feel rushed on occasion! And while it's been many years since I saw the Bakshi film, I remember being bothered a little by the crappy animation even then, and the stills I've seen recently convince me that it's even lamer than I remembered.

Ken: huh? I didn't realize MJ had wings grafted on. Guess I should have watched that special...

Matt: I stay far, far away from Usenet these days. ::shiver:: As for the Bakshi film, I was real thrilled when it came out, and then I heard about the awful animation too, and I saw some shots somewhere (it's been a long time, I can't remember where), and I came to the conclusion that the animated film was best avoided by me. Also, didn't the film end at Helm's deep? Bakshi was going to make the rest of it, but ran out of money, inclination, permission, whatever.

the Bakshi film has an animation style that takes getting used to. mixing in live action makes it look rather weird. from what i remember it's angular and sparing. the character design is interesting - i liked some and hated others.

if/when i break down and buy the DVD (i'd like a better edition than they released, but who knows if they'll put one out) i'll post a review in my blog.

I have lots of problems with TTT, but I am holding out COMPLETE judgement until the EE DVD comes out...it should be apparent by now that there was no way Jackson could fit all the notable elements in a theatrical version without losing the newbie audience. Earlier poster was correct: film and book=different media. My problems center around Merry and Pippin, but that's beside the point...

Suffice it to say, I think that picture is one of THE most classic images from the film. I absolutely loved it. Its too bad they didnt think to use it in a poster. It definitely stirs the heart. I think it is because collectively, it is an image that is in close approximation to what WE see whenever we consider the confrontation between good and evil, hobbit and Wraith, story and impact.